Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA

[Glendon Gross <gross(at)xinetd.com>]

Yes, please do share it.  Thanks.

Regards,

Glendon Gross


"aicra@well.com" wrote:

> Glendon,
>
> I use a tv card, my hi8, ffmpeg and xawtv to convert my video to digital.
> I don't see any probs there...
>
> I wrote an ffmpeg man if you want it, I can dig it up.
> -marcia
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Glendon Gross gross@xinetd.com
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:21:21 -0700
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
>
> The Behringer 9024 is 24-bit, so no degrading of the signal takes place
> on the way to the P.C.   But the analogue soundcard samples at
> 44.1 Khz.  (While this is typically thought of as CD-quality, the sound
> has been preprocessed by whatever settings I have on the 9024.)
>
> Lately I have been converting the files to 128k Ogg Vorbis format in
> order to avoid the implications of .MP3 files, after which I delete the
> .WAV files to save space. Nevertheless,  I'm concerned by the direction
> the courts have taken in almost uniformly ruling against the consumer
> and in favor of large corporations.  I'm starting to worry if the RIAA
> might eventually try to target users of .ogg files, since the sound
> quality is superior to .MP3 at
> a given bitrate.   (There is more information on ogg vorbis files at
> http://xiph.org.    The freedom of the Ogg Vorbis format from copyright
> and
> software patent concerns is probably a separate issue from the question
> of which copying behavior is sanctioned as "fair use.")
>
> I've been wanting to buy a video spigot in order to convert the pictures
> from my analogue camcorder to DVD's.  Yet part of my reluctance in
> taking
> this step has been due to copyright concerns and the potential for
> misunderstanding.    I can definitely see both sides of the issue, but I
> feel that the
> pendulum has swung too far in favor of the copyright owners.
>
> Regards,
>
> Glendon Gross
>
> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
>
> >
> > My guess is that it would be a circumvention device under the DMCA or
> > that the RIAA will certainly argue that it is. What's the resolution
> > of your A/D? A CD is 16 bits. If you are using less than that, then
> > you are not actually copying the CD but degrading the performance as
> > with MP3 compression (see those cases). If you are using more than 16
> > bits then you are definitely copying the content with the distortions
> > introduced by the D/A, the lack of perfect sample pulses, the
> > reconstruction filter and the Sigma-Delta modulator (if a S-D D/A is
> > used).
> >
> > The same argument can be made for DVDs if you access the video signal
> > and convert it or whatever. Presumably Judge Kaplan would rule that
> > this is also forbidden speech.
> >
> >
> >  Glendon Gross <gross@xinetd.com>
>    Sent by:                                       To:
>    owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu  dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>                                                   cc:
>    06/18/2003 10:40 AM                            Subject:        Re:
>    Please respond to dvd-discuss          [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and
>                                           AHRA
> >
> >
> >
> > I can't help asking the question,  "What about music that is copied
> > using
> > analogue techniques, so that
> > it does not represent a binary copy of the original file on the
> > CD?"    For
> > example, I like to record CD's to
> > my PC through the line audio input in my soundcard, running the sound
> > through
> > my own favorite set of analogue and
> > digital effects.  (I use a Behringer DSP-9024 to preprocess the input
> > stream.)  Does anyone know what the DMCA would say, if anything, about
> > me
> > doing this with my original and purchased content?
> >
> > My perception has been that this falls under "fair use", but I can't
> > help
> > noticing the irony that no matter what technique
> > is used to protect the digital content, it fails when I do this.   In
> > that
> > sense, it would seem that the processed (and non-copy protected)
> > copy would be called an "original work."  Yet I see how quickly we get
> > into a
> > quagmire of ambiguity here.   I'm thankful that the PC is not
> > called a "circumvention device".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Glendon Gross
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "aicra@well.com" wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a question:
> > >
> > > Where there or not copy controlled music CDs? And if there were, did
> > anyone
> > > bypass the encryption? Were those files then passed along? If so,
> > then all
> > > the music that resulted from those would be a DMCA violation.
> > >
> > > However, it is my belief that because of the AHRA music is legally
> > shared
> > > otherwise. With regards to music that did not have copy control or
> > cds that
> > > were not encrypted, then shared "music" is NOT a DMCA violation.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I am mistaken about the music section of the DMCA, but I
> > believe it
> > > had most to do with subscription services, not music copies... The
> > AHRA on
> > > the other hand specifically states:
> > >
> > > A personal computer is not a device specifically designed to store
> > and
> > > record audio.
> > >
> > > Title 17
> > > Chapter 10
> > > Subchapter B
> > > Section 1008
> > >
> > > -marcia
> > > Original Message:
> > > -----------------
> > > From: Richard Hartman hartman@onetouch.com
> > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:37:43 -0700
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
> > >
> > > The thing is that there _is_ amgiguity in fair use.
> > >
> > > There is, however, _no_ ambiguity in the DMCA.  If you
> > > bypass the TPM to get to the content, you're guilty.  Even
> > > if the act of copying the content is not in itself illegal.
> > > Fair use is one area.  Backups are another.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Richard M. Hartman
> > > hartman@onetouch.com
> > >
> > > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Phil Gengler [mailto:phil@codeallday.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:31 PM
> > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I phrased it like that because the DMCA was a set of massive
> > > > changes to
> > > > copyright law, so the DMCA could be considered a subset of
> > copyright
> > > > law.  I wasn't really getting into fair use, which I probably
> > should
> > > > have mentioned along with that.
> > > >
> > > > Although, fair use isn't really a concrete thing either, the way
> > it's
> > > > laid out in the law is a series of tests for a judge to consider.
> > I'd
> > > > much rather see fair use actually be codified, so that there's no
> > (or
> > > > less) ambiguity as to what is a fair use.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:23, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 19:08, Phil Gengler wrote:
> > > > > > Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws,
> > but
> > > > > > violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the
> > DMCA.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. The first part of your statement is not necessarily
> > > > true. I can be
> > > > > violating the DCMA by ripping some "Exclusive Bonus
> > > > Material" on a DVD.
> > > > > But the purpose of the copying to is to provide an except
> > > > to emphasis a
> > > > > point in my online video critique of the DVD. That falls
> > > > well within the
> > > > > bounds of fair use.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:04, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > Violating copyright laws and violating the DMCA are
> > > > _not_ the same thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vigilante actions are typically against the law -- law
> > > > enforcement is in the hands of the police agencies, not the
> > > > individual (or the corporations).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .